matteoam

Aslan's work is so unoriginal and doesn't offer anything new to the conversation. I should take him so seriously when he said in an interview that he never heard of Bart Ehrman? Are you kidding. That aside, despite the supposed fact that it put forward that The Jesus of the NT never existed, I find that kind of strange because the only reason this website exists is part and parcel of that Jesus. Also despite the non-belief in any supernaturalism even if we take the Bible as an existential treatise on e human condition it is worth something. It seems to me that whatever belief human beings hold there is always an element of belief that they can do better. So faith and hope seem to be part of what makes us human. What we hope for and have fai in, then, determines how we live. For all the wrong that has been done in the name of religion there is some "spiritual" or unmanifested but evident, in humani beings . I don't exclude non-humans from this but I cannot comment on them as I cannot communicate with them. I do not presume to think that human beings are the most important beings in the universe, but it seems that even secular humanism has to admit that humans have more value than non-humans - not that I am saying we have the "right" to kill other life forms. But that it the way life is, isn't it? I think we all are part of a matrix if you will in which we are co-dependent with life therefore we need to figure out how to minimize killing other life forms. So Jesus doesn't exist, God doesn't exist, blah blah blah. What does the secular humanist with Scientism as their faith have to offer in terms of hope, faith, love for others, as a form of evolution? Now I'm not coming to this with the attitude of a religious fundamentalist, but the presumption that is made to Jesus, logically then, needs to be applied to other figures I history who offered humanity a glimpse of their own potential? Being atheist, I would think you look incredulously at other faiths say Hinduism, which is not so much a religion as a culture which has philosophical schools which are atheist but somehow live in harmony with other schools which are theistic. The athesit/theist argument for Hinduism happened thousands of years ago and the West seems to be coming to the pray pretty late. My own notion of God and Jesus is somewhat less theistic than orthodoxy, but I admit to being attracted to orthodoxy for deeper aspects of spirituality and an appreciation and respect from studying it without judgment. It seems that atheism is all about judgement and for me presents a different form of fundamentalism. Ito say that this or that person in the bible or this or that event did or did not happen with "evidence" is absurd. There is not evidence so no definitive judgement can be made. What we all do unfortunately is come to the table with our our karma, our our emotional baggage and our our prejudices - all things we need to get over if we want to be humble and really mature. There is faith and hope and frankly the arrogance of atheists I come across is astounding at times. They mistake their subjective biases for objective fact - the same as funafmentalists do when they take about biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism. There is no way to unanimously prove than anything in he bible happened or not or happened exactly the way it is written. That is faith. And in ink the reasons why atheism attack other peoples faith is somewhat understandable but it also reflects some deep seated issues of hate in themselves. Why desire to make anyone an enemy? Or hate people? It makes nonsense. Fine, have your opinion and state it. But let goers work out their own existential needs without the paranoia that hey are trying to impose mind control over you. Get over your own existential needs too. .

Yes but why can't you cut people a break to work our their own karma? Why not pray for them or be willing to be vulnerable toward them so you can make a discernment and not a judgement? Why create another camp that considers them an enemy? If we really loved our enemies.

Yes, silence. I think all those things are delusions of the ego. When I say that Jesus says it is like opening ones eyes. I've heard that to practice yoga is not to make yourself better but to bring yourself to the realization of your true self that you've always been. Like waking up. Why shouldn't walking the Christian faith be the same thing? Our identity is a child of God. I can't explain why the world is the way it is. All I can do is see the suffering for what it is arising out of consequences and see past it as I involve myself in it.

Everything is of God as that is all there is. My sin my karma is my ignorance. Every thing is an aggregate then. I don't know why this is. If I do something there is a consequence to that action. Even non-action has a consequence. In a Christian context Jesus being the focus of our attention due to him being an incarnation of God is the one who saves. Save means heal. Save means destroying opposition. Save means deliverance from terror, torture, fear of death (death itself). Save means liberation from ignorance and illusion. This is why even in Christian context the orthodox Christus Victor is a more reasonable atonement theory (if one wants to go there). Hinduism has similar images of God (Shiva, Kali). In the western context, the Christ is the image to start with.

God is a mystery and a paradox which cannot be fully comprehended. All I can do is remain silent before it. As I act in accord to it that action has to include compassion and the notion that there is no separation between myself an any other I perceive. This is nonduality. Advaita Vendanta is one ontogical system with deals with this. This is not an intellectual understanding. Why it is like that I am not aware of. Maybe others further down the path are. Read The gospel of sri ramakrishna and Rama Maharshi. They will blow your mind. Read Bede Griffiths for Christian Vedanta. As I meditate on the bible I see this permeating scripture not because some philosophy tells me but I experience this when I empty my mind and allow scripture to talk to me. When I experience myself as separate from you that is an illusion. Or maya. It is not evil or good. It is. I don't know why evil happens in the world except maybe it has something to do with actions and consequences of consciousness. Everything is not permissible because it will reinforce karma or sin that it might continue to have adverse effects further in time which I am not aware of. I don't see the reality of dualistic thinking when God is in the picture. If there is an a-theistic notion like Buddhism all is still Atman. No-thing-ness. This doesn't mean nihilism is a path because there is no- thing to be negating. There is all-in-one and not-all-one. I cannot claim to really get this but there are more conscious people than I (see my ego language) who "get it". I cannot consider God as an image or a person or as any-thing. God is (and is not) at the same time. So, what is the sound of one hand clapping? Before I was born again, the mountains were mountains. When I was born again the mountains were not mountains. After I was born again the mountains were mountains.

I don't go to church because I'm a Christian,

In terms of participating I would say that there is as much a lack in the PC church I attend as I have seen in virtually ever church I've attended which has a liberal bent to it. What always depressed me was the more conservative or orthodox churches I have encountered are so participatory that it seemed to me second nature. PC and more liberal minded church contain the seeds of their own dissolution as they say that members can believe whatever they want do long as they show up. Worship within that faith community is essential to me for showing up. If I sense that a congregation a lukewarm, who look docile and seem asleep in the pews, and the minister is delivering a bland sermon and essentially preaching to the choir about how great we PCers are, I realize I can spend my Sundays doing something more productive. One PC church I went to and wanted to be a member of left me starving for something. It was literally a waste of my time as I was left wondering why anyone else showed up. I don't think all PC congregations are like this, but I have yet to find one locally who had credited anything more than a liberal oasis of self-satisfaction. Becoming more aware of spiritual disciplines has raised the bar for me beyond what liberal Christianity has to offer in my area and that depresses me.

The Harper Collins list of 100 Spiritual Books of the 20th Century

This us true but I think the negativity is a symptom of something deeper. Even if there is no God, that there was no historicity to the events, the stories reflect a deep seated existential need on the part of human beings that should be meaningful to secular humanists.

Wayseer so speaking about some basic tenets of Christain faith in the negative what is it that you do believe? Frankly I can't say whether any of the events in the Bible occurred anymore than I can prove that the events which took place in the Mahabharata ever took place or the the Buddha sat under the bodhi tree and attained nirvana. That being said I believe in the events as they illustrate a deeper spiritual truths. So what is means is more important than the historicity of the events. If some Christian believe in their factuality so what? What truth do you think the stories contain? If they have no value that's fine. But even if they are made up stories they say something about being human, don't you think? Let's put aside what other people we don't agree with anyway think. What do you think? What do you believe? Why the need to test down someone's belief here? To me that's bad karma.

While I was listening to the 1 Year Daily Audio Bible podcast this morning after making the above post, the scripture reading really struck me as expressing my attitude about what I believe in God - in terms of one of many types of relationship. The OT reading for the day was Isaiah 48:12-50:11 I encourage any reader to take the time to access the verses from any site or any translation they have in their possession so they can take the time to ponder it themselves. This is how I see God relating to us. This even before Jesus was incarnated. We can only express God in our language, feeble as it is, but it still conveys something about our relationship to the Divine.

I think that when we speak about God, what we say is both true and untrue simultaneously. I think the most "effective" way to talk about God is in relationship. I see God in Jesus because Jesus was in full relationship with God and lived it (incarnated it). But, I am coming to realize that there is no difference between Jesus, myself, and God. Ram Dass talks about the relationship between the student, the guru and God. He says there is no difference between the three. There is no three. There is One. The guru's role is to show the student this. So, in a sense, Jesus was a guru. This nonduality makes more sense to me than the duality of good vs. evil, etc. I mean, scripture is clear in the Book of Isaiah that God is the source of all good and evil. So logically it makes no sense for the Adversary (Satan, Lucifer, whichever name applied), is anything more than God acting in a certain role. This thinking has evolved in me since I began to take my faith in Jesus more seriously, through all the things I experience and study as I expressed in my introduction.

Paul I think everything is a progression of spirit manifesting itself. I do think that karma is a more reasonable concept than "original sin", which, by the way, I challenge any Christian to show where Jesus says anything about. Karma is much more complex than the way it is portrayed in the popular culture. That all comes from St. Augustine, who, with all due respect, was, in my opinion, wrong. Do I think karma and Christianity can work together? Yes I do. Just look at the Christian mystics, The Cloud of Unknowing, St. Teresa, Meister Eckhart. Also Bede Griffiths did alot of work in the Christian Ashram Movement, along with others. I see alot of parallels with Zen and Benedictine spirituality also. Ultimately, I think everything is a play of consciousness. My sins are part of my karma and part of my own progress toward realization. The dualist model of Christianity just doesn't work for me. It really does make God out to be a capricious and moral monster-tyrant. I cannot just say that everything is an illusion and since there is no sin then everything should be permissible. That is a false paradigm. The "morality" of non duality arises from realization that there is no difference between "you" and "I". There is no-thing...just the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, God. Getting into the desert father and mothers, and meditating on the gospels, the church fathers, etc. and seeing the limitations in their perspective, when I "go beyond them" I see a God that is more "defined" as panentheistic. But I also recognize that even that is an image that needs to be transcended. Maybe I'll get there in this life. If we are to accept the Incarnation, then it has to be an ongoing process which never really "began". It always IS. The duality that Christianity has developed has been necessary, but like all human constructs, is limiting. My sin is my karma - my false perception of myself in relation to others, to myself, and to God. But, it is being manifested as a play - like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, or The Glass Menagerie. It is through compassion - which is synonymous with following Jesus (or wanting to) - leads one through the illusion of the ego and Self.

My spiritual direction has been through my preparation to become a Benedictine oblate. It's allowed me to reprint myself with God in a way I never imagined.

What always concerns me about the OT references to other gods is the awkward position it puts traditional Christians in. So, Yahweh starts out as one god among many, since the tribes of old had their own pantheons, or god they worshipped. Then Yahweh became THE god as he seems to have beat up the other gods. Now, God is more inclusive as an idea to the western mind. At least some teachings of Hinduism are more clear about the idea of God, Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, who is manifested as the other deities, Indra, Shiva, Rama, etc. and figures like Krishna are incarnations. The Hindus saw that the spiritual and material worlds were one in the same. I can say that Buddhism is non-theistic, but that is not accurate. Buddha simply didn't want to address the issue of a deity and other matters because they didn't seem helpful. There are forms of Buddhism that see Gautama as an incarnation of Indra, or God. There are also devas, other buddhas, demons, etc. and other beings who are far more advanced than us in their spiritual realization. So, I feel that if some Christians make the comment that Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhism worship other gods, then in their literal reading they are right. At the same time however, even orthodoxy and tradition dictates that those who worship "other gods" have a skewed view of reality and are mistaken. They worship "false" ideas. They conceptualize God in their conceptualizing "idols". Don't PCers do the same to some extent? I stick with Paul Tillich who sees God as being beyond Being, or being itself. I personally find apophatic theology, which attempt to describe God by negation or "to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God." Paradoxically, God is and is not at the same time. No human language can describe or talk about God. When Christians point to Jesus, then, it is always in terms of relationship. Other religions talk about this too. Hindus have "bhakti", for example. So, what other God is there? We are told that that other god is something that refocuses our attention from God. But that doesn't make sense, if one sees God as a thing, or as a subject, which Karl Barth does. For me, my evolution as a Christian involves doing away with all images of God, Jesus, the Cross, doctrine, and really trying TO BE the I AM. I can only do that in relationship with others.

There is nothing substantial I can say about myself in the short space allotted here. I consider myself to be a spiritual person who is a Christian and embrace all other faiths as being valid paths to knowing God in whatever form, or non-form, that tradition perceives. Christian images are the most familiar to me so I stick with this tradition with all its human failings. I find there is a similar message proposed by all religions when it comes to disciplines, devotion, community, and relationship with the divine, despite different views in religious matters. These differences are to me nothing more than results of historical context and culture - both of which are relative. These are less important to me than the perennial truths religions espouse from the full spectrum of practitioners. In Christianity for example I believe the most conservative, orthodox, traditional and fundamentalist view of scripture is as valid as the most unorthodox and progressive. I believe this because ultimately everything in this universe is an expression of God. All then is maya - "the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled" according to Vedanta. I also believe that this is not to be thought of as negative or evil but merely as a play, a performance, of God, Brahman, or whatever image anyone wants to apply to it. I believe Jesus expressed that and he was incarnated and was resurrected. I may be wrong but whatever if anyone wants to hammer my beliefs have fun because u won't defend it because there is no- thing to defend. I have cone to this belief by studying scripture, learning how to pray and meditate (still working in it) and listening to the Church Fathers, Ram Dass, alan Watts, and many others and trying to take the Dalai Lamas advice to explore the depths of my own tradition I was raised in. I am someone who finds it difficult to be in community when that community does not seem to really be devoted to worship in spirit and truth, I find that I have little desire to be in community with people who barely look awake in church, who don't sing hymns, or who are more comfortable with unbelief than belief. I say this with full humility in realizing that these faults I might perceive in others are deep seated faults within me do I have a damned long way to go and slot of work to go. What I hope to find in this community is more humility on my part and more understanding for my sins.

I recognize and respect other faith traditions. I don't believe they are one or are the same but are all true in their pursuit of God. Christianity works for me because it's the most familiar.

Stopman I have found that believing and doing go hand in hand. There has to be a balance. I have come to be more understanding towards Christians who believe radically different things about the faith than idea. There is nothing in what you said about PC that isn't true for most other Christisns I have encountered. I'm reluctant to consider PC better because then it just makes it another denomination with its own dogma and doctrine. I think PC can be better than it is and should live up to what It's adherents think it can be. And I accept all PCers for their failings too just like I accept all humans for their faults. Being a PC doesn't make you a better person.

Through meditation I have felt a presence, not a feeling, which I am communicating with. I do consider this the voice of god.

The irony of the message board under debate and dialogue is that the PC complains about conservatives, the orthodox tradition, and fundamentalism. I have no sense that there is any understanding and discernment of contradictory views which are preached to the choir. Where is the dialogue if there is no real exchange of ideas? I for one understand why those who are labeled as fundamentalist believe what they do. I disagree with them but am tolerant of them. I disagree with how too many PCers give the impression that these others can do no right. I understand that some PCers come from negative experiences and can respect and tolerate their positions, but I also think that if progression toward something else includes more than letting go of negative anger. I have yet to read any comments by PCers about forgiveness, forebearance, patience, and compassion toward others who don't share the PC view. PC can be as intolerant and dogmatic as fundamentalist in using the 8 points as doctrine-lite. I believe that PC can be most successful if PCers get over their PCness and really challenge themselves by being ore inclusive toward more conservative, orthodox, traditionalist, fundamentalist Christians. I challenge PC to say that these people can sit in worship beside them without having to adopt the PC motto, or that PCers be willing to sit in worship with all those Christians they oppose in practice and belief. An important part of being genuinely spiritual hasore to do with being with people who don't agree with you any genuinely loving them more than being with like-minded people.

I wonder why I even bother to attend my PC church. PC can be so diluted spiritually that I consider it the step- sibling of UU. And both can se useless spiritually as they sometimes contain homogenized spirituality. At times at least, is rather stay home Sunday morning as the services are so bland.

I wonder why I even bother to attend my PC church. PC can be so diluted spiritually that I consider it the step- sibling of UU. And both can se useless spiritually as they sometimes contain homogenized spirituality. At times at least, is rather stay home Sunday morning as the services are so bland.

BoundSacrifice, why do you limit yourself to this conservative/liberal paradigm? You sound like a committed and faithful person. I don't know how spiritual discipline has shaped your faith and your commitment. I am personally at the point where I accept the surface differences and want to move beyond the conservative/liberal arguments that will never be resolved. I have found so much that is edifying in orthodoxy as well as unorthodox practice. I believe all people regardless of their beliefs have something to contribute to the journey of faith. My own challenge in loving those who are so so different from me in terms of faith but my practice is beginning to transform me. By practice I mean gratitude, hearing and meditating on scripture, really listening to all views and engaging in people's lives to work toward discernment and not judgement. And many more to work on too.

Steve, you make a good point. Belief is fundamental. I understand the transition from one belief to another can be traumatic and I accept that in others. But a key component I think in being PC is not simply replacing one belief system with another without a realization of ones self in relation to what other one rejects. PC gives me breathing space but it doesn't leave me room for being dogmatic, decisive, or angry towards the other. I trust that those who express anger towards what some other Christian says or believes May be necessary but I sense that most PCs have an ax to grind just as most fundamentalists do. If PC makes the claim that they are better then they need to act like it.

Here's a thought that came toy mind. I think PCs are as much caught up in the literalism toward scripture as their supposed opponents - which include fundamentalists on the one hand and atheists on the other. What then makes PCs so Progressive? For me it is a virtually meaningless term. They argue with other Protestants and defy the catholics (by which I mean the Roman Catholic Chruch and the Orthodox). I find it somewhat ironic that Protestants today - moderate or emergent - are looking back to the spirituality of the catholics. PC is just another reactionary term that wants to justify itself and that is stuck in the limiting rationalism of the enlightenment. I used to be so gung-ho about being a PC and now I don't care about this label given my awakened devotion to God (Bhakti) as I rembraced catholic theology and spirituality being fully aware of the limitations of those who invented it. Yes they thought it out and came to a conclusion. We all do that. They were also aware that their reason had its limitations and they had FAITH in something beyond it. This should be the driving force of PC as they are supposed to ENCOURAGE inquiry. I see most PCs always complaining about what this or that type of Christian says or always speak of scripture in the negative and wanting to dismiss it. Then why bother at all? For me I take the most seemingly horrible verses of scripture and I meditate long and hard on them. I become aware of what arises in me and I realize that what violence is in the text exists in me. If the OT gives me anything it's the reflection if human nature. If we reject that then we reject what is IN ALL OF US and we have to contend with that to see its illusory nature to get to the I AM that is in us. I for one am not so beholden to the past that I make an idol of it. I won't be Lot's wife looking back to the past. At its best PC can be a way to transcend the paradoxes of the Christian faith. At its worst iris nothing more than another dogmatic denomination.